TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal validates re-assessment, sets Fair Market Value, deems assessment final. Appeal dismissed.</h1> <h3>Smt. Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb Versus ITO, Ward-5 (1), Pune</h3> Smt. Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb Versus ITO, Ward-5 (1), Pune - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of re-assessment proceedings.2. Adoption of Fair Market Value (FMV) for property as on 1.4.1981.3. Provisional nature of the assessment order.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Re-assessment Proceedings:The first issue concerns the initiation of re-assessment proceedings. The assessee argued that the second notice under section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, dated 28.3.2016, was invalid as it was based on the same set of facts as the first notice dated 30.3.2015, which had been dropped by the ITO. The Tribunal noted that the initial re-assessment proceedings were dropped due to typographical mistakes and other infirmities in the first notice. The second notice was issued after recording proper reasons, which indicated that the assessee's indexed cost of acquisition was excessively high compared to another co-owner of the same property. The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in issuing the second notice as the first proceedings were dropped without any decision on the merits, and thus, it did not constitute a change of opinion. The Tribunal relied on precedent cases to support this view, stating that the AO can issue successive re-assessment notices as long as they are within the stipulated time and properly justified.2. Adoption of Fair Market Value (FMV) for Property as on 1.4.1981:The second issue involved the adoption of FMV for the property as on 1.4.1981. The assessee had adopted a value of Rs. 700 per sq.mtr based on a Registered Valuer's report, whereas the AO adopted Rs. 400 per sq.mtr, which was the value declared by another co-owner and supported by the Ready Reckoner rate and the Town Planning Department's valuation. The Tribunal found that the Registered Valuer's report was not based on comparable sale instances and was less reliable compared to the Ready Reckoner rate and the value adopted by another co-seller. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the AO's adoption of Rs. 400 per sq.mtr as the FMV.3. Provisional Nature of the Assessment Order:The third issue was whether the assessment order was provisional because the AO mentioned that the FMV adopted was subject to the determination by the DVO. The Tribunal clarified that the assessment was finalized with the adoption of Rs. 400 per sq.mtr and a demand notice was issued. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not revise the assessment order or consider any adverse report from the DVO, making the assessment order final and not provisional. Therefore, this contention was rejected.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, the adoption of Rs. 400 per sq.mtr as the FMV for the property as on 1.4.1981, and rejecting the argument that the assessment order was provisional. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
